In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 9 This Document Relates To: Re: Dkt. Nos. 702, 704, 705, 708, 714, 715, 10 719, 721, 728, 730, 732, 743, 794, 795, 798, ALL ACTIONS 800, 802, 808, 809, 811, 814, 817, 819, 821, 11 823, 874, 876, 878, 879, 882, 885, 890, 897, 902, 904, 906 12 13 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 14 of documents in connection motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions filed by 15 Philips, HTC, and Microsoft (thirty-six sealing motions in total).1 The Court GRANTS the 16 motions to file under seal. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 1 These do not include the motions to seal filed in connection with ASUS’s motion for summary 27 judgment, Philips’s motion for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions as to ASUS, and 1 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 2 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 3 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 4 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 5 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 6 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 7 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 8 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 9 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 10 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 11 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 12 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 13 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 14 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 15 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 16 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 17 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 18 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 19 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 20 June 30, 2015). 21 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 22 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 23 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 24 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 25 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 26 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 27 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary 3 judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court will apply the 4 lower good cause standard for documents related to the Daubert motions. 5 The parties have satisfied the standards for sealing because the unredacted information 6 contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties. 7 See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. 8 Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 9 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 10 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties (and non-party Google) filed supporting 11 declarations representing that the identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and 12 exhibits contain information disclosing confidential licensing negotiations, pricing information, 13 detailed source code, and non-public technical descriptions of their products. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 14 721-1, 773, 779, 781, 784, 795, 808-1, 847, 853, 856, 916, 917. According to the parties, public 15 disclosure of such information would cause severe harm to them, as competitors, potential 16 litigants, and licensees could use the information to their disadvantage. See id. 17 The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the parties’ 18 administrative motions to seal. HTC and Philips executed a settlement agreement, and the 19 pending motions for partial summary judgment and Daubert motions as between them have been 20 terminated as moot. Dkt. Nos. 955, 957, 958. Similarly, Microsoft and Philips have also entered 21 into a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation of dismissal that the Court entered, and have 22 been terminated as moot. Dkt. Nos. 963, 965. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s 23 understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of 24 these documents is minimal given that the Court will not rule on the parties’ motions. See In re 25 iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light 27 of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 1 information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the 2 || Court finds that there is compelling reason and good cause to file the documents under seal. See 3 Economus vy. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges 5 sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe 6 v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 7 || 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling 8 reasons to seal the exhibit). 9 Wl. CONCLUSION 10 The Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to ll Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are 12 || granted will remain under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 2/20/2020 Abptpured 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28